November 23, 2017

Falsificators of History - How Preparations for German Aggression Were Commenced

FALSIFICATORS OF HISTORY - (AN HISTORICAL NOTE)
American fakers and their British and French associates are trying to create the impression that the preparations for German aggression which developed into the Second World War were begun in the autumn of 1939. Yet who can swallow this bait nowadays but absolutely naive people prepared to believe any sensational fabrication?

Who does not know that Germany began preparing for war immediately after Hitler had come to power? Who does not know, moreover, that the Hitler regime was established by German monopoly circles with the full approval of the ruling camp of England, France and the United States?

In order to prepare for war and to provide herself with the most modern armament, Germany had to restore and develop her heavy industry, and first of all her metallurgical and war industries in the Ruhr. Having sustained defeat in the first imperialist war Germany, then under the yoke of the Versailles treaty, could not do this with her own forces in a short period. German imperialism was rendered powerful support in this matter by the United States of America.

Who does not know that in the post-Versailles period, American banks and trusts, acting in full accord with the Government, made investments in German economy and granted Germany credits running into billions of dollars, which were spent on reconstruction and development of the war industrial potential of Germany? It is known that the post-Versailles period was marked for Germany by a whole system of measures directed toward the reconstruction of German heavy industry and in particular of the German war industrial potential.

Of tremendous importance in this respect was the so-called Dawes Reparation Plan for Germany by means of which the United States of America and England planned to render German industry dependent upon American and British monopolies. The Dawes Plan cleared the road for a heavy influx and infiltration of foreign, chiefly American, capital into German industry.

As a result of this, the rise of German economy caused by an intensive process of re-equipment of production machinery had already begun in 1925. At the same time, German exports rose sharply and by 1927 reached the level of 1913, while in the case of manufactured goods they even surpassed that level by 12 per cent (in 1913 prices). During the six years from 1924 through 1929, the influx of foreign capital into Germany totalled between 10 and 15 billion-odd reichsmarks for long term investments and more than six billion reichsmarks for short term investments. According to some sources, the volume of capital investments was considerably higher. This led to a colossal growth of the economic, and in particular, of the war, potential of Germany. A leading part in this matter was played by American capital investments which amounted to no less than 70 per cent of the total long term loans.

Well known is the role played by American monopolies headed by the DuPont, Morgan, Rockefeller, and Lamont families and other industrial barons of the United States in financing German heavy industry and in establishing and expanding exceedingly close connections between American and German industries. The leading American monopolies proved to be most closely connected with German heavy industry, war industry concerns and banks.

The leading American chemical concern, E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. and the British Imperial chemical trust (Imperial Chemical Industries) which was one of the largest shareholders of the General Motors automobile trust, maintained close industrial relations with the German chemical concern, I. G. Farbenindustrie, with which in 1926 they concluded a cartel agreement for a division of the world powder market. Before the war, the president of the Board of Directors of Rohm and Haas Company in Philadelphia was a partner of the head of the same company in Darmstadt (Germany). Incidentally, at present, the former director of this concern, Rudolf Mueller, is active in "Bizonia" and plays an important part among the leaders of the Christian Democratic Union. Schmitz, the German capitalist president of I. G. Farbenindustrie and a member of the board of Deutsche Bank, controlled the General Dyestuffs Corporation, an American firm, during the period from 1931 to 1939. After the Munich Conference (1938), the American Standard Oil trust signed a contract with I. G. Farbenindustrie under which the latter was given a share in the profits from the production of aviation gasoline in the United States and in return willingly ceased exporting from Germany synthetic gasoline which it was producing and which Germany was storing up for war needs. Such connections are not typical of American capitalist monopolies alone. Thus, extremely close economic relations not only of commercial but also of military importance existed, on the very eve of war, between the Federation of British Industries and the German Reichs Industrie group. In 1939, representatives of these two monopolies issued a joint statement in Dusseldorf which said in part that the purpose of the agreement was "to secure the fullest possible cooperation between the industrial systems of their respective countries." And this took place at a time when Hitler Germany had swallowed Czechoslovakia! No wonder that the London magazine Economist wrote in this connection: "Is there not something in the Dusseldorf air that makes reasonable men lose their senses ?"1

1 Corwin D. Edwards, Economic and Political Aspects of International Cartels, 1944.

The well known Schroder Bank in which a leading part was played by the German steel trust Vereinigte Stahlwerke, which was organized by Stinnes, Thyssen and other captains of Ruhr industry and had its headquarters in New York and London, furnishes a typical example of the close interweaving of American and German as well as British capital. Allen Dulles, director of Schroder Banking Corporation in New York, which represented the Schroder interests in London, Cologne and Hamburg, played a leading role in the affairs of this bank. The well-known Sullivan & Cromwell law firm headed by John Foster Dulles, now Mr. Marshall's chief adviser and closely connected with Rockefeller's world oil trust, Standard Oil, as well as with the Chase National Bank, the most powerful bank in America which made enormous investments in German industry, played the leading role in the New York headquarters of the Schroder Bank. In his book which appeared in New York in 1947, Richard Sasuly stresses the fact that no sooner had inflation been checked in Germany in the post-Versailles period and the reichsmark had gained strength than a torrent of foreign loans rushed into Germany. Between 1924 and 1930 Germany's foreign debt increased by more than thirty billion reichsmarks. With the help of foreign, chiefly American, capital, German industry, especially the Vereinigte Stahlwerke (a German firm), was extensively reconstructed and modernized. Some loans were granted directly to companies which played a leading part in rearmament.2

2 Richard Sasuly, I. G. Farben, Doni and Gaer, New York, 1947. p. 80.

Dillon, Read & Co., one of the largest New York banks, of which James Forrestal, the present Secretary of Defense, had been a director for a number of years, played a leading part in financing the German steel trust Vereinigte Stahlwerke in that period along with the Anglo-German-American Schroder Bank.3

3 Stock Exchange Year Book, London, 1925; Who's Who in America; Who's Who in American Finance; Moody's Manual of Corporations; Poor's Manual of Corporations, 1924-1939.

It was this golden rain of American dollars that fertilized the heavy industry of Hitler Germany and in particular her war industry. It was billions of American dollars invested by overseas monopolies in the war economy of Hitler Germany that re-established Germany's war potential and placed in the hands of the Hitler regime the weapons it needed for aggression. Relying on the financial support which came chiefly from American monopolies, Germany within a short period of time re-established a powerful war industry that was capable of producing enormous amounts of first-rate armament, thousands upon thousands of tanks, planes, and guns as well as naval ships of the latest designs and armament of other kinds. Fakers of history would like to forget all this, as they are trying to evade responsibility for their policy which supplied Hitler aggression with arms, unleashed the Second World War and led to war disaster without parallel in history, which cost mankind millions upon millions of victims.

Thus it must not be forgotten that the first and foremost prerequisite of Hitler aggression was provided by the resurgence and modernization of Germany's heavy industry and war industry, and that this became possible only as a result of the direct and extensive financial support rendered by the ruling circles of the United States of America. And yet this is not all.

Another factor of decisive importance which helped to unleash Hitler aggression was the policy of the ruling circles of England and France which is known as the policy of "appeasing" Hitler Germany, a policy of renouncing collective security. At present it should be clear to everyone that it was this policy of British and French ruling circles as expressed in their renunciation of collective security, in their refusal to resist German aggression, in their connivance with Hitler Germany's aggressive demands, that led to the Second World War.

We shall now turn to further facts. In 1933, soon after Hitler came to power, a "Pact of Accord and Cooperation" was signed in Rome by the four Powers – Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy – through the efforts of the British and French Governments. This pact signified that the British and French Governments came to terms with German and Italian fascism, which even at that time did not try to conceal its aggressive intentions. At the same time, this pact with the fascist states signified the renunciation of the policy of strengthening the united front of the peace-loving powers against the aggressive states. By coming to terms with Germany and Italy behind the backs of the other powers who were taking part in the disarmament conference which was being held at that time and was discussing a Soviet proposal on the conclusion of a non-aggression Pact and of a pact on the definition of an aggressor, Great Britain and France dealt a blow to the cause of peace and the security of nations. Soon after, in 1934, England and France helped Hitler to take advantage of the inimical attitude of their ally Poland – ruled by her gentry – toward the USSR, and this resulted in the conclusion of the non-aggression pact between Germany and Poland which formed one of the important stages in the preparation of German aggression.

Hitler needed this pact for the purpose of disorganizing the ranks of the adherents of collective security and to show by this example that what Europe needed was not collective security but bilateral agreements. This enabled the German aggressor to decide for himself with whom to conclude agreements and when to conclude them, whom to attack and when to do so. Beyond any doubt, the German-Polish pact constituted the first serious break in the edifice of collective security. Hitler grew bold and openly took a series of steps to re-establish Germany’s armed forces without encountering any opposition on the part of the rulers of England and France. On the contrary, soon after that, in 1935, a naval agreement between Britain and Germany was concluded in London where Ribbentrop had arrived for this purpose. Under this agreement, Great Britain consented to re-establishment of German naval forces in a strength which nearly equalled that of the French Navy. Besides, Hitler obtained the right to build submarines with an aggregate displacement amounting to 45 per cent of that of the British submarine fleet. During the same period, Hitler Germany also took unilateral actions aimed at abolishing all other restrictions on the growth of Germany's armed forces that had been imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. These actions encountered no opposition on the part of England, France or the United States. The appetite of the fascist aggressors grew every day with the manifest connivance of the United States, Great Britain and France.

It was certainly not accidental that at that time both Germany and Italy easily got away with their armed interventions in Ethiopia and Spain.

The Soviet Union alone consistently and firmly pursued its policy of peace, championing the principles of the equality and independence of Ethiopia, who was moreover a member of the League of Nations, and the right of the lawful Republican Government in Spain to receive the support of the democratic countries again German and Italian intervention.

"The Soviet Union," said V. M. Molotov at the session of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR on January 10, 1936 in connection with Italy's attack on Ethiopia, "has demonstrated in the League of Nations its fidelity to this principle – the principle of the political independence and national equality of all states, in the case of one of the small countries, Abyssinia. The Soviet Union has also taken advantage of its membership in the League of Nations to put into practice its policy toward an imperialist aggressor."4 Molotov said also at that time that "The Italo-Abyssinian war shows that the threat of a world war is growing and is steadily spreading over Europe."5

4 V. M. Molotov, Articles and Speeches, 1935-1936, p. 176.

5 V. M. Molotov, Articles and Speeches, 1935-1936, p. 177.

And what were the Governments of the United States, Great Britain and France doing at that time, under whose eyes the fascist bandits were dealing ever more insolently with their victims? They did not as much as lift a finger to curb the German and Italian aggressors, to defend the rights of nations which were being trampled upon, to preserve peace and to stop the Second World War which was approaching. The Soviet Union alone was doing everything possible in order to block the fascist aggressors' way. The Soviet Union came forward as the initiator and champion of collective security. As early as February 6, 1933, M. M. Litvinov, the Representative of the Soviet Union in the General Commission on Disarmament, proposed that the Commission adopt a declaration on the definition of aggression and aggressor.

In proposing a definition of aggressor, the Soviet Union held that it was necessary in the interests of general security and in order to facilitate agreement on the maximum reduction of armaments to define the term "aggression" with the utmost possible precision in order to "forestall every pretext for its justification." This proposal was, however, declined by the Conference, which was acting under the direction of England and France for the benefit of German aggression. Everybody knows what a persistent and prolonged struggle was waged by the Soviet Union and by its delegation to the League of Nations, headed by Litvinov, to maintain and consolidate collective security. Throughout the whole prewar period, the Soviet delegation upheld the principle of collective security in the League of Nations, raising its voice in defense of this principle at practically every session of the League of Nations, in practically every commission of the League of Nations. It is known, however, that the voice of the Soviet delegation remained a voice in the wilderness.

The whole world is familiar with the proposals made by the Soviet delegation concerning measures for strengthening collective security, proposals which, on the instruction of the Soviet Government, were addressed to Mr. Avenol, Secretary-General of the League of Nations, on August 30, 1936, with a request that they should be discussed by the League of Nations.

It is also known, however, that these proposals were buried in the archives of the League of Nations and that no action was taken on them. It was clear that England and France, who controlled the League of Nations at the time, rejected collective resistance to German aggression. They rejected collective security because it stood in the way of their newly adopted policy of "appeasing" German aggression, a policy of concessions to Hitler aggression. Naturally, this policy could not but result in the intensification of German aggression, but the ruling Anglo-French circles believed that this was not dangerous because, having satisfied Hitler aggression by concessions in the West, they could then direct this aggression to the East and utilize it as a weapon against the USSR.

In his report to the Eighteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March, 1939, J. V. Stalin, analyzing the reasons for the growth of Hitlerite aggression, said:

"The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly England and France, have rejected the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to the aggressors, and have taken up a position of non-intervention, a position of neutrality.”6

6 J. V. Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU (B).

In order to confuse the reader and at the same time to slander the Soviet Government, Neal Stanford, an American journalist, asserts that the Soviet Government was opposed to collective security, that Litvinov was dismissed and replaced by Molotov in the post of the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs because he had been pursuing a policy of consolidating collective security. One could hardly imagine anything more stupid than this fantastic assertion. It is clear that Litvinov did not pursue any policy of his own, but the policy of the Soviet Government. On the other hand, everybody knows what a struggle for collective security was waged by the Soviet Government and by its representatives, including Litvinov, throughout the prewar period.

As regards the appointment of Molotov to the post of People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs, it is perfectly clear that in the complex situation, when fascist aggressors were preparing the Second World War, when Great Britain and France, backed by the United States of America were plainly abetting the aggressors and spurring them on to start a war against the USSR, it was necessary to have in such a responsible post as that of People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs a political leader with greater experience and greater popularity in the country than Litvinov.

The rejection of the collective security pact by the Western Powers was not fortuitous.

It was in that period that the struggle between two lines in world affairs had developed. One was that of the struggle for peace, for the organization of collective security and for resistance to aggression by the joint efforts of the peace-loving nations. This was the line the Soviet Union was pursuing, consistently and staunchly defending the interests of all peace-loving nations, great and small. The other line was that of rejecting the organization of collective security, of refusing to oppose aggression; and this inevitably encouraged the fascist countries to intensify their aggressive activity and thereby helped to unleash a new war.

Historical truth, as can be seen from all this, consists of the facts that Hitlerite aggression became possible, firstly because the United States of America helped the Germans to establish within a short time a war economic base for German aggression and thus provided this aggression with arms; and secondly, because the rejection of collective security by the ruling Anglo-French circles disorganized the ranks of the peace-loving countries, disrupted the united front of these countries against aggression, paved the road for German aggression and helped Hitler to unleash the Second World War.

What would have happened if the United States had not financed Hitler Germany's heavy industry, and England and France bad not rejected collective security, but on the contrary had organized jointly with the Soviet Union collective resistance to German aggression? The result would have been that Hitlerite aggression would lack armament, Hitler's annexationist policy would have been caught in the vise of a system of collective security, the Hitlerites' chance of success in unleashing the Second World War would have been reduced to the minimum.

And if in spite of unfavorable conditions, the Hitlerites had still ventured to unleash the Second World War, they would have been defeated in the very first year of war. Unfortunately, this did not happen because of the ruinous policy which was pursued by the United States of America, England and France during the course of the whole prewar period.

It is they who are guilty of allowing the Hitlerites to unleash with some measure of success the Second World War, which lasted nearly six years and took millions of human lives.